![Global rules on foreign direct investment](https://www.nortonrosefulbright.com/-/media/images/nrf/nrfweb/knowledge/publications/us_24355_legal-update--fdi-alert.jpeg?w=265&revision=a5124a65-abf9-40e4-8e96-9df39ffdb212&revision=5250068427347387904&hash=96B456347C3246E5649838DF281C5F5D)
Publication
Global rules on foreign direct investment (FDI)
Cross-border acquisitions and investments increasingly trigger foreign direct investment (FDI) screening requirements.
United States | Publication | July 2024
On June 26, 2024, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) held in Snyder v. United States that 18 U.S.C. § 666 does not apply to gratuities—even those that raise eyebrows and ethical concerns. The federal statute prohibits public officials, including most state and local officials, from "corruptly" soliciting, accepting or agreeing to accept "anything of value from any person, intending to be influenced or rewarded" in connection with an official business or transaction worth US$5,000 or more. 18 U.S.C. § 666(a)(1)(B) and (b). Indisputably, § 666 prohibits public officials from accepting bribes, that is “payments made or agreed to before an official act in order to influence the official with respect to that future official act.” Courts had long been split regarding whether § 666 applied to gratuities—“payments made to an official after an official act as a token of appreciation.” But SCOTUS has now determined that federal prosecution of gratuity payments was an inappropriate application of § 666 because it would leave many—mailman receiving a family’s holiday tip or a public school teacher accepting a gift basket from a student's parents—wondering whether the federal law applied to their conduct. SCOTUS emphasized, yet again, that when imposing criminal repercussions, a defendant should never be left in doubt.
Snyder involved a former city mayor in Indiana who, while mayor, was involved in awarding two contracts to a local truck company, and ultimately, the city purchased five trash trucks for about US$1.1 million. The following year, the truck company cut the then-mayor a check for US$13,000. The mayor argued that he received the check for "consulting services" performed for the trucking company, but federal prosecutors alleged that the payment was a § 666-prohibited gratuity. The mayor was convicted and sentenced to one year and nine months in prison. On appeal, the mayor argued that § 666 criminalizes only bribes, not gratuities. SCOTUS agreed for the following six reasons:
The Court highlighted the importance of the timing of the agreement, not the payment. Under § 666, an official is still prevented from skirting punishment by making an agreement before the act to be “rewarded,” but accepting payment after the act claiming it as a gratuity.
In a concurring opinion, Justice Gorsuch underscored that “any fair reader of this statute would be left with a reasonable doubt about whether it covers the defendant’s charged conduct.” When that happens, he continued, “judges are bound by the ancient rule of lenity” to decide “not for the prosecutor, but for the presumptively free individual.” In other words, when in doubt don’t charge.
Snyder follows a recent trend towards curtailing federal prosecutors broad interpretations of federal anti-corruption laws, which is running parallel with the curtailment of the almost unfettered powers of federal agencies in decision like SEC v. Jarkesy, 603 U.S. __ (2024) (limiting SEC powers) and Loper v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. __ (2024) (overruling the Chevron doctrine, which had Courts give deference to federal agencies previously considered “experts” in their respective fields). The last session of SCOTUS also brought a pair of unanimous decisions vacating the federal fraud and corruption conviction of two New York State political operatives and limiting the scope of honest-services wire fraud. Ciminelli v. United States, 598 U.S. 306 (2023), and Percoco v. United States, 598 U.S. 319 (2023). In Percoco, the Court rejected the idea that a private citizen who may have some control or domination over decisions of government officials can violate “the intangible right of honest services” in the federal wire fraud statute. Similarly, in Ciminelli, the Supreme Court rejected an expansive property-deprivation theory of wire-fraud liability.
A few years prior, in 2020, in a unanimous decision, SCOTUS overturned the convictions of two defendants in the “Bridgegate” scandal involving the shutdown of the George Washington Bridge to punish a political opponent in an adjacent town. In Kelly v. United States, 590 U.S. 391 (2020), the Court found that, while perhaps there was an abuse of power, the defendant’s actions were not a federal crime, and the defendants’ convictions were overturned.
The Court’s messaging is clear: where federal statutes do not expressly prohibit conduct, it is not up to federal prosecutors to fill the gaps. It remains to be seen if the Department of Justice will recalibrate some of its more ambitious corruption prosecutions, having seen its theories repeatedly rebuked by the Court. An important caveat to Snyder (and the other decisions) is that state and local governments still have the right to regulate gratuities and state and local officials should remain mindful of state and local regulations.
A special thanks to New York Associate Sarah Perlin for contributions to this legal update.
Publication
Cross-border acquisitions and investments increasingly trigger foreign direct investment (FDI) screening requirements.
Publication
On February 2, 2024, the Belgian Presidency of the Council of the European Union confirmed that the Committee of Permanent Representatives had signed the Artificial Intelligence (AI) Regulation, referred to as the AI Act. Approval by the EU Parliament followed on 13 March 2024, and the AI Act is likely to appear in the EU’s Official Journal around May 2024. The AI Act aims to establish a stringent legal framework governing the development, marketing, and utilisation of artificial intelligence within the region, thereby marking a significant advancement in the regulation of this burgeoning domain.
Publication
The private credit market and direct lending have grown and diversified immensely in the past decade, offering alternative sources and terms of debt compared to those historically provided by the syndicated leveraged loan and public issuance markets. Consequently, they are fast becoming pivotal components in the capital ecosystem, so much so that the Bank of England consider that the private credit market is currently responsible for approximately $1.8 trillion of debt issuance, which is four times its size in 2015. This growth has been particularly pronounced in Europe and the US but there has also been significant activity in Asia.
Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest legal news, information and events . . .
© Norton Rose Fulbright LLP 2023